Re: [netconf] ietf crypto types - permanently hidden

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

> On Apr 4, 2019, at 1:46 PM, Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 04:23:23PM +0000, Kent Watsen wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> We have always said no, but the reasoning is unclear.  What are the
>>> specific objections and is there anyway to alleviate them?
>>> 
>> 
>> If editing of all configuration can be done with a single edit-data
>> (or edit-config) operation, you simplify the world and you enable
>> generic implementations.
>> 
>> Once you build silos of data that can only be manipulated with special
>> purpose operations, you say goodbye to the idea of generic client
>> libraries.
> 
> And you can no longer create all required config in one transaction;
> you have to split it into sending multiple special-purpose actions.
> Perhaps also in a certain order, that you have to figure out somehow,
> since config might have refererences to other partf of the config
> etc.
> 
> You can no longer restore a backup with just a copy-config.
> 
> So I don't think the reasoning is unclear at all.


This is a good start to a list of limitations that could be added to
a description statement.  Let people decide.  In this case, not a 
big deal.

Kent // contributor